effectivephilanthropy.org

Social media is increasingly viewed as a powerful vehicle to aid social change. In 2011, social media

tools played a role in the political mobilization in

the Middle East that came to be known as the Arab

Spring. For example, a “Day of Revolution” Facebook

page was created to organize widespread protests

in Egypt and more than 90,000 people signed up

on this page.1 Less positive uses of social media

also emerged during the Arab Spring—demonstrating

the “double-edged nature of new media.”2

In the United States, an outpouring of reactions

via social media likely contributed to Susan G.

Komen for the Cure reversing its decision to no

longer make grants to Planned Parenthood.3

The degree of public outcry was notable for its

immediacy and for its effect on the mainstream

media’s coverage of what may have otherwise

transpired with little public notice.

By AndreA Brock And ellie ButeAu, Phd

Grantees’ Limited Engagement with Foundations’ Social Media

In light of such developments, it is not surprising

that foundations are investing in social media

tools. These tools can serve myriad functions for

foundations, from promoting a culture of transparency

to the public at large, to influencing thought leaders,

to connecting with grantees.4 Because grantmaking

foundations accomplish their goals largely through

the nonprofits they fund, this paper focuses on the

last function, even though we fully recognize that

some foundations may not see grantees as a key

audience for their social media efforts.

Even those that do see grantees as an audience for

their social media don’t necessarily share the same

goals. Some foundations might aim simply to share

information with grantees, while others may be

trying to engage grantees in interactions with the

foundation and its staff. We do not aim here to

examine the various reasons foundations may be

using social media but rather to address a very

basic question: Are grantees using their foundation

funders’ social media?

To address this question, in 2011 the Center for

Effective Philanthropy (CEP) collected survey

responses from more than 6,000 grantees about

their experiences with one of the 34 foundations

in this study.5

We found that:

» The majority of foundations use social media

tools in their work.

» Very few grantees use social media from their

foundation funders or their funders’ staff.

» Grantees that do use foundations’ social media

find those resources less helpful than other

communication resources for learning about

the foundation.

2

Gr

an

tee

s’

Lim

ite

d E

ng

ag

em

en

t w

ith

Fo

un

da

tio

ns

’ S

oc

ial

Me

dia

1 Kareem Fahim and Mona El-Naggar, “Violent Clashes Mark Protests against Mubarak’s Rule,” The New York Times (January 25, 2011).

2 Scott Shane, “Spotlight Again Falls on Web Tools and Change,” The New York Times (January 30, 2011).

3 Peter Panepento, “Social Media Fuel Debate as a Big Charity Cuts Off Planned Parenthood Aid,” The Chronicle of Philanthropy’s “Social Philanthropy” blog (February 1, 2012).

4 See: The Communications Network’s “Foundation Communications Today” 2011 Report; Council on Foundations toolkit, “Getting Started with Social Media”; Beth Kanter, “How Much Time Does It Take to Do Social Media?” Beth’s Blog (October 2008).

5 These questions were included in a broader survey that explored dimensions of foundation performance ranging from relationships with grantees to perceptions of foundation impact on the grantee organization, local community, and field. For more details, see Appendix: Methodology.

What We Mean by “Social Media”

There are various terms used to describe the many

online communication tools available today. We

have chosen the term “social media” in this report to

represent the use of four specific online tools: blogs,

Facebook, Twitter, and video sharing (e.g., YouTube),

which we refer to as “videos.”

Foundations and Nonprofits Included in This Research

The median asset size of the 34 foundations

included in this research is roughly $370 million,

and the typical foundation in this group grants

$17 million annually. These foundations represent

a mix of types, including private, community, and

health conversion funders.

The individual at the grantee organization who

responded to our survey is most often in a

leadership position. Executive directors or CEOs

make up 40 percent of respondents, 20 percent are

program directors, and 14 percent hold other senior

management positions at the nonprofit organization.

The median annual operating budget of the

nonprofits in this research is $1.3 million.

Foundations Embrace Social MediaOf the foundations in this research, 71 percent have

either posted videos or have a Twitter account, a

Facebook page, or a blog. Slightly more than half

have adopted at least three of these four tools.

Videos have been the most widely embraced

medium by foundations—68 percent of foundations

have posted videos. More than half have a Twitter

or Facebook account, but only 29 percent have a

blog. (See Figure 1.)

The majority of these foundations are investing

some effort in social media, but are their grantees

paying attention to these resources?

3

TH

E C

EN

TE

R F

OR

EFF

EC

TIV

E P

HIL

AN

TH

RO

PY

Figure 1Foundations’ Use of Social Media

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

BlogsTwitterFacebookVideos

Per

cen

tag

e o

f Fo

un

dati

on

s

68%

59%56%

29%

Are Foundations Actively Using Their Social Media Tools?

To understand the extent to which foundations are using their social media tools, we examined how often each foundation posted videos or added updates to its Facebook page, Twitter account, or blogs over the three-month period preceding the close of the grantee survey rounds in 2011.

Of the foundations that do use these tools, their frequency of use varied considerably during this period. Some funders were heavy users of their organizational accounts on social media, while others hardly used them.6 This variation existed for all four of the social media tools that we examined. Of these four, video was the tool most infrequently used by foundations. During the three-month period we examined, we were unable to locate any videos posted by 14 of the 23 foundations that had used videos in the past.

No relationship was found between the frequency of foundations’ usage of social media tools and the proportion of their grantees accessing those tools.

6 This information rings true with a 2010 Foundation Center report, which found that fewer than one-third of foundation CEOs are using online communication tools on a regular basis. See the Foundation Center’s report: “Are Foundation Leaders Using Social Media?” (September 2010).

Grantees Are Not Engaging with Their Foundation Funders’ Social Media Despite the availability of foundations’ social

media, few grantees are accessing these resources.

Only 16 percent of grantees surveyed report using

social media created by their foundation funder or

its staff.7 Almost one-third of grantees report that

they don’t know whether their funder or its staff

use any of the social media resources examined

in this research. (See Figure 2.)

Of the social media resources examined, Facebook

pages are the most commonly accessed by grantees,

but only 10 percent of grantees are using them.

(See Figure 3.)

4

Gr

an

tee

s’

Lim

ite

d E

ng

ag

em

en

t w

ith

Fo

un

da

tio

ns

’ S

oc

ial

Me

dia

7 The item in our survey used to gather this data asked grantee respondents to indicate whether they “have used any of the following online resources” created by their foundation funder or its staff. The response options were “Blog(s),” “Facebook,” “Twitter,” “Video Sharing (e.g., YouTube),” “None of the above,” or “I don’t know whether the foundation uses these online media resources.”

Figure 2Grantees’ Use of Social Media Created

by Funder or Its Staff

Per

cen

tag

e o

f G

ran

tees

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Does not know whether their funder or its staff use social media

Uses no social media created by funder or its staff

Uses at least one social media tool created by funder or its staff

32%

16%

52%

This finding raises the question, why are grantees

not using their foundation funders’ social media?

(See sidebar: “Questions This Research Raises.”)

We examined two potential explanations. First,

grantees simply are not interested in using their

funders’ social media. Second, grantee organizations

lack familiarity or comfort with social media. Our

data suggest that the first explanation may be part

of the story, but that the second does not appear

to be an issue.

Fifty-one percent of grantees report that they would

use their funder’s videos if their funder made videos

available. A slightly smaller proportion of grantees

report that they would use a blog or Facebook page

from their funder or its staff. (See Figure 4.) Yet,

most of the grantees that said they would use their

funder’s video, Facebook, or Twitter resources if

available were responding about funders that we

found to have these resources already available.

5

TH

E C

EN

TE

R F

OR

EFF

EC

TIV

E P

HIL

AN

TH

RO

PY

Questions This Research Raises

Our findings raise a number of questions

for future research:

» How do grantees want to engage with their

foundation funders’ social media?

» How have foundations and their staff

communicated to grantees about the availability

of their social media resources?

» Is the content of funders’ social media posts and

updates relevant to grantees?

» Who within the grantee organizations are funders

trying to reach with their social media?

Figure 3Grantees' Use of Individual Social Media Tools

Created by Funder or Its Staff

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

TwitterVideosBlogsFacebook

Per

cen

tag

e o

f G

ran

tees

10%6% 6% 5%

The large majority of a typical foundation’s

grantees—80 percent—use social media for their

own work. On average, grantee organizations are

using between two and three types of social media

to communicate about their own work, with

Facebook as the most widely used resource. (See

Figure 5.) Social media usage can differ greatly

among individuals, though, and the individual at

a grantee organization who is responding to our

survey may not necessarily be one of the people

using social media at his or her organization.

More Conventional Resources Deemed More HelpfulAmong the different modes of communication

grantees use with foundations, social media

is not seen by grantees to be as helpful as other

communication resources. On average, grantees

find social media to be less helpful for learning about

the foundation than individual communication with

foundation staff, group meetings with foundation

staff, foundations’ published funding guidelines,

and foundations’ websites. (See Figure 6.) The

greatest differences in helpfulness ratings exist

between the in-person communication resources—

individual and group meetings with foundation

staff—and social media.

6

Gr

an

tee

s’

Lim

ite

d E

ng

ag

em

en

t w

ith

Fo

un

da

tio

ns

’ S

oc

ial

Me

dia

Figure 4Grantees That Do Not Use Social Media

from Funder or Its Staff but Would Like To

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

TwitterFacebookBlogsVideos

Per

cen

tag

e o

f G

ran

tees 51%

43%

37%

20%

Most of the grantees that said they would use their funder’s video, Facebook, or Twitter resources if available were responding about funders that we found to have these resources already available.

7

TH

E C

EN

TE

R F

OR

EFF

EC

TIV

E P

HIL

AN

TH

RO

PY

Figure 5Grantee Organizations’ Use of Social Media

to Communicate about Their Own Work

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

BlogsTwitterVideosFacebook

Per

cen

tag

e o

f G

ran

tee

Org

aniz

atio

ns

71%

46%42%

34%

Figure 6Helpfulness of Communication Resources

for Learning about the Foundation Generally

6.5

6.2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Social media

Website

Published fundingguidelines

Groupmeetings

Individualcommunication

5.1

Average Helpfulness RatingExtremely

helpfulNot at allhelpful

5.6

5.9

Figure 7Helpfulness of a Foundation’s Social Media for Grantees

5.1

5.0

5.0

Average Helpfulness RatingExtremely

helpfulNot at allhelpful

4.3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

For interacting andsharing ideas with

the foundation

For learning about thefoundation's goals

and strategies

For learning informationabout the grantee's fields

or communities

For learning about thefoundation generally

8

Gr

an

tee

s’

Lim

ite

d E

ng

ag

em

en

t w

ith

Fo

un

da

tio

ns

’ S

oc

ial

Me

dia

Other uses for social media, beyond learning about the foundation generally, do

not fare any better with respondents when it comes to helpfulness. On average, the

helpfulness of social media for interacting and sharing ideas with foundations is one

of the least positively rated items by grantees in our entire survey. (See Figure 7.)

9

TH

E C

EN

TE

R F

OR

EFF

EC

TIV

E P

HIL

AN

TH

RO

PY

Why Are Grantees Using Their Foundation Funders’ Social Media?

Grantees are primarily using social media created by their

funders or their funders’ staff for the purpose of gathering

information—either general information about the funder

or content-specific information.

Few grantees report using social media to interact with

their funder. Facebook is most likely to be used to interact,

but only 14 percent of the grantees currently accessing their

funders’ or their funders’ staff members’ Facebook page cite

interacting with their funders as a reason for doing so.

(See Figure 8.)

The small percentage of grantees using their funders’ social

media resources for interacting is somewhat surprising given

that the words “interactive” and “networking” are often

associated with these communication tools. Our data cannot

address why grantees are not using their funders’ social media

tools in this way, but there appears to be room for deeper

engagement between foundations and grantees through

social media platforms.

Figure 8Grantees’ Reasons for Using Funders’ Social Media

0%

20%

40%

60%

VideosTwitterBlogsFacebook

Per

cen

tag

e o

f G

ran

tees

47%

33%

14%

38%

54%

10%

37%35%

12%

34%

50%

7%

For general information about funder

For content-specificinformation

To interactwith funder

8 Foundation Center, “Are Foundation Leaders Using Social Media?” (September 2010).

9 Quoted in Lucy Bernholz, “Why Would a Foundation Tweet?” Philanthropy 2173 blog (February 2011).

Conclusion Social media is increasingly ubiquitous. The

majority of foundations are using social media

tools in their work, and most nonprofits are using

these tools at their own organizations. Yet very

few of the grantee respondents to our survey are

using social media from their foundation funders

or their funders’ staff. Those who do are finding

foundations’ social media less helpful than other

communication resources.

There is some evidence that foundation leaders

are unsure of the utility of social media. In a 2010

survey of foundation CEOs, the Foundation Center

found that only half believed social media had

been at least somewhat useful in furthering the

work of their foundations. The study concluded

that foundation leaders are optimistic about the

value of social media tools but “are uncertain

how best to use them to further the work of

their own foundations.”8

Jim Canales, president and CEO of the James

Irvine Foundation, who is among the more active

foundation leaders on Twitter, said he will know

the foundation’s efforts using social media have

been “worth it” when the foundation can “point

to ways where social media helped Irvine to have

greater impact toward [its] program goals.”9 This

bar seems like the right one to assess the investments

of time and money being made in social media by

foundations. Clearing that bar does not necessarily

require that grantees use foundations’ social media

or value it: It is possible that foundations are influencing

other key audiences in ways that further their program

goals. Yet for many grantmaking foundations, reaching

grantees appears to be an important objective when

it comes to social media. Furthermore, if the grantees

that a foundation funds are not using these resources,

it raises the question of whether it’s realistic to

think that those with less direct ties to the

foundation are, either.

It is also possible that we will see increasing

use of these resources by grantees—that our

data capture a moment in time that is still early.

Perhaps those in our survey population are just

warming up to the idea of interacting with their

foundation funders in this way. Time will tell. In

the meantime, these results should at least provoke

some reflection on the part of foundations about

the utility of social media when it comes to their

interactions and relationships with their grantees.

10

Gr

an

tee

s’

Lim

ite

d E

ng

ag

em

en

t w

ith

Fo

un

da

tio

ns

’ S

oc

ial

Me

dia

Questions for Foundation Leaders about Using Social Media

Social media tools are only as effective as their purpose is clear. Foundations looking to invest time and money in a social media presence might be well-served to consider the following questions:

» For what purpose(s) does your foundation use social media? How do social media tools add to your foundation’s existing communication resources and outreach?

» Who are your audiences? Grantees? Policymakers? Field leaders? Community leaders? How are these audiences prioritized?

» How does social media fit into your foundation’s strategy to achieve its goals?

» Are your foundation’s efforts to use social media worth the resources being dedicated to these tools? On what basis would you make this decision?

APPENDIX: METHODOLOGYTwo separate data collection efforts were undertaken

for this study: a survey of grantees and independent

data collection by CEP staff of publicly available

information on social media usage by foundations.

Survey of Grantees

The grantee data discussed in this report were

gathered through confidential surveys administered

between the spring and fall of 2011. These surveys

were administered as part of CEP’s Grantee Perception

Report® (GPR) process. When a foundation commissions

a GPR to understand how its grantees perceive it, we

send a survey to the grantee staff member whom

the foundation tells us is its primary contact.

Sample

Thirty-four foundations commissioned a GPR

between the spring and fall of 2011. In total, 10,316

grantees of these 34 foundations were surveyed, and

6,838 grantees responded, resulting in a 66 percent

response rate. One foundation requested that we not

survey its grantees about the foundation’s use of

social media, and two foundations only asked a

portion of the social media question module. Of

those grantees that responded, 40 percent had the

title of executive director or CEO, 20 percent were

program directors, and 14 percent held other senior

management positions.

Method

Grantees responded to over 50 survey items, many of

which were rated on seven-point Likert rating scales;

other items contained categorical response options.

The survey also included three open-ended items.

The survey was administered online, and grantees

were given the option to respond anonymously. The

survey questions explored many dimensions of

foundation performance, ranging from relationships

with grantees to perceptions of foundation impact on

the grantee organization.

The survey sought data from grantees about their

organization’s use of social media and their usage,

as well as the helpfulness, of social media created

by their foundation funder or its staff, specifically

asking about blogs, Facebook, Twitter, and video

sharing (e.g., YouTube).

Quantitative Analyses

To analyze the data, a combination of t-tests, chi-

square analyses, correlations, and analysis of

variance tests was used. Paired samples t-tests were

conducted to understand differences in helpfulness

ratings between social media and other

communication resources. The number of grantees

included in each paired t-test varied, from as low as

378 grantees in the comparison of helpfulness ratings

between “group meetings” and “social media” to as

high as 820 grantees in the comparison of

helpfulness ratings between “websites” and “social

media.” An alpha level of 0.05 was used to determine

statistical significance. Effect sizes were examined

for all analyses, and only those of at least a medium

effect size were reported in this paper.

Data Collection on Foundation Social Media

For each of the 34 foundations represented in our

dataset, we conducted a search for an organizational

account or postings for each of the four social media

tools using the foundation’s website, Facebook,

Twitter, YouTube, Vimeo, and Google. To ensure

grantees that were surveyed could have used these

accounts by the time they completed our survey,

timestamps were checked for each resource. For

10 of the 34 foundations, organizational accounts

or postings were not available for any of the social

media tools examined. Nine foundations were using

all four of these social media tools. Our process did

not include searching for the social media accounts

of individual foundation staff members.

The frequency of a funder’s use of social media was

determined by counting the number of blog posts,

tweets, Facebook status updates, and video posts a

funder made during the three-month period before

the close of its grantee survey period.

www.effectivephilanthropy.org

675 Massachusetts Avenue 7th Floor

Cambridge, MA 02139

T: (617) 492-0800F: (617) 492-0888

100 Montgomery Street Suite 1700

San Francisco, CA 94104

T: (415) 391-3070F: (415) 956-9916

BETTER DATA. BETTER DECISIONS. BETTER PhILANThROPY.

© 2012. The Center for Effective Philanthropy, Inc. All rights reserved. This work may not be copied, reproduced or published without the express written permission of the Center for Effective Philanthropy.

Acknowledgements

We are very appreciative of the support that made this work

possible. Special thanks to the Rita Allen Foundation, which

provided grant funding for this research.

See CEP’s website, www.effectivephilanthropy.org, for a full

list of funders.

We are grateful to Elizabeth Christopherson, Crystal Hayling,

Susan Promislo, Daniel Silverman, and Jonathan Sotsky for

feedback on an earlier draft of this report. This paper is

based on CEP’s independent data analyses, and CEP is solely

responsible for its content. The report does not necessarily

reflect the individual views of the funders, advisors, or

others listed above.